Also, I have never claimed that black markets don't exist or that jails aren't overpopulated. That is a lie.

The closest example we have of something like a gun ban is Prohibition, which was repealed almost a century ago because of the havoc it caused. Politicians have the benefit of hindsight to see what a fiasco that was. We won't be having a repeat of it with guns.

Edit: changed "are" overpopulated to "aren't" overpopulated.

« Last Edit: October 08, 2010, 10:53:17 AM by Agamemnon »

Logged

So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence. --Bertrand Russell

There is absolutely no reason to think that the threat of a gun ban is anything more than a myth.

Give me a plausible reason to think otherwise and I'll consider it, but this shit you've been coming up with here is as pointless and unconvincing as chicken little yelling that the sky is falling.

No politician is stupid enough to go for a repeat of prohibition. Anyone that doesn't consider prohibition a complete failure is in a tiny minority. This looks like reality to me. If it doesn't look like reality to you, then I'd say you are just being paranoid.

Logged

So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence. --Bertrand Russell

Lead to? No. Cause? Yes. As mentioned in my "Let's Ban Cameras" blog, there is a statistically proven link between cameras and child sexual abuse imagery. By your logic, there is a point at which the proliferation of child pornography would be so great you would allow the banning of cameras.

Nice dodge. I already explained that one and that doesn't answer my question.

Quote from: koberulz

Of course. Society could benefit from a lot of things. Compulsory exercise programs. Fingerprint ID everywhere. Strip searches for all those who enter a public building. The banning of cars, alcohol, cigarettes, and conceivably even such things as guns, knives, spray paint, hammers, saws, and LeBron James. This doesn't make it okay to bring in such laws.

Maybe because the benefits don't make it worthwhile? And again - I've not said, lets go out and ban, I said, lets not legalise, banning something that's widely used has a lot of logistical issues and causes many other problems. Guns in the UK aren't in wide use and problems weren't caused when they became illegal (as far as I am aware), it seems that the society doesn't see the need to protect itself with the use of guns, therefore we don't necessarily need to change our current gun laws, particularly if legalisation makes the situation worse...I thought I've already said this like a hundred times?

Quote from: koberulz

Also, do not use the word irregardless, because it isn't one, even if Firefox's spell checker is convinced otherwise. The word you're looking for is 'irrespective' or 'regardless', not a combination of the two..

It would appear that's a point to try and make me look stupid and to dodge the points in question. I am perfectly aware my posts may contain grammatical errors, because every individual in the world is capable of making mistakes and I don't need to be corrected unless you're unable to comprehend what I've written, but in general I dislike grammar Nazis. However, if you insist on being one: 'irregardless' is recognised as a word by the Oxford Dictionary, which is probably why Firefox isn't correcting it:

It's defined as an informal version of 'regardless', dating from the mid 19th Century. From the sounds of it you need a few lessons on 'Language Change'. Language evolves, it's why English is very different today than it was 1,000 years ago and I bet you'll have a hard time understanding Old English properly (Ð? ?r?s mæni? goldhladen ðe?n, ?yrde hine his swurde) and it's why there's a difference between 'American English' and 'British English'. 'Irregardless' is a compound of 'irrespective' and 'regardless' and it is considered a valid term.

Quote from: koberulz

Hey, if you want to live in a Police State go right ahead.

There needs to be a level of regulation in a society, yes and I still stand by freedom - I covered my views on civil liberties waaaaaay back. You can't have a functioning society without being somewhere in the middle, too much freedom causes problems, but then so does too little freedom. There's definitely civil liberties we need to be able to exercise and we need civil liberties to keep us from living under a fascist dictatorship, but that doesn't mean every kind of potential civil liberty ought to be allowed - hence I said, "not every kind of freedom is beneficial" as opposed to, "freedom is not beneficial", one means living in a society that exercises its freedoms but maintains a level of regulation to keep it fair, safe and secure, the other means exactly what you said, becoming a police state or something else where you severely lack 'freedom'.

I like how you still dodge the main points, even with the questions were written so plainly.

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

The closest example we have of something like a gun ban is Prohibition, which was repealed almost a century ago because of the havoc it caused. Politicians have the benefit of hindsight to see what a fiasco that was. We won't be having a repeat of it with guns.

But marijuana was legal during prohibition! Marijuana and alcohol are both drugs! Your comparison is invalid!

1) The gubmint has made mistakes in legislation in the past2) Some politicians aren't as smart as others3) Sometimes the gubmint bans things4) Therefore, we should fear a gun ban any day now. GAAAAAAH! Go out and buy all the guns-n-ammo you can before its too late!!!!!

Is there anything I've left out?

Logged

So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence. --Bertrand Russell

The closest example we have of something like a gun ban is Prohibition, which was repealed almost a century ago because of the havoc it caused. Politicians have the benefit of hindsight to see what a fiasco that was. We won't be having a repeat of it with guns.

But marijuana was legal during prohibition! Marijuana and alcohol are both drugs! Your comparison is invalid!

I agree. I said it was closest example. I think a gun ban today would be much worse than prohibition.

Edit to add: I don't think it is the closest example because they are both drugs.

« Last Edit: October 08, 2010, 12:31:30 PM by Agamemnon »

Logged

So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence. --Bertrand Russell

Care to explain how they missed the exact same logic with drugs, then?

That just says they missed the exact same logic with drugs, meaning it can't be the most obvious thing in the world (at least to the point of being reason enough not to institute a ban) as Ag is claiming. It has nothing to do with the likelihood of a gun ban at all. Opposition to any gun ban is going to come from the second amendment and the number of guns already in circulation in the states.

On the other hand, etymologically it means 'worth regard,' which is exactly the opposite of its use. The word 'cromulent' is in the dictionary for no other reason than that the Simpsons made it up.

Language is defined by its usage. If people are using a word enough, it'll be considered as part of the language, the word 'meh' was not so long a go included in the dictionary and it is considered to denote 'indifference'.

Yes, you can trace the etymology behind a word, but a semantic shift can still occur in language change - so the previous meaning doesn't affect the current meaning (hence it has shifted), the word 'gay' is a perfect example of a semantic shift. From 'happy' to 'homosexual'. With the compounding of the two words 'irregardless' came to be an informal version of the word 'regardless'. What the two words compounded actually mean is irrelevant. 'Irregardless' is an acceptable term to use in the English language, however, I know that there are people who cringe at the sight of the word, so I'll respect that and use 'regardless' instead.

Also, TV can influence language change too - you'll probably find 'doh' in the dictionary as well (just checked and it is). 'Standardised English' is based on common usage and not a prescribed authoritarian order of language. Even then, it's not considered inappropriate to speak anything that isn't "Standardised English", I am a big fan of colloquialisms myself and use them a lot of the time, though less frequently when typing.

Quote from: koberulz

Who gets to decide whether or not the benefits make it worthwhile, and what data is used to draw this conclusion?

Who gets to decide? How's a bill passed? Through government. Does this mean the government decide - not necessarily, whenever a bill is proposed, in our democratic society you as a collective have the ability to get the right amendments made or stop the bill being passed altogether. Democracy isn't necessarily going to result in decisions that best benefit society, but there's no such thing as a flawless system of government. But at least the system places the responsibility on the people who are affected.

As for data. I went through that one: research, studies, scientific method (like social sciences) etc. Yes, it's difficult, but a fool's decision is based on rhetoric. A fool would also universalise the stats for the US, I am sure a good scientist will tell you this. If you're going to based 'knowledge' on rhetoric and misused statistics, then you're no different to a creation scientist, whose expertise is selling unscientific bollocks to back a claim. If judges in court based their decisions on misused statistics and rhetoric, they'd could be putting innocent men in jail, this could be argued of the West Memphis Three, whose prosecutors were spouted rhetoric over evidence or proof and they were sentenced on death row.

Quote from: koberulz

But they shouldn't have been banned in the first place.

It depends, would violent crime be worse or better today if they hadn't?

Quote from: koberulz

But as mentioned in another thread, you're either free or you're not.

Then you, like I, are not free. Somalian pirates on the other hand, well, you might even then suggest on some accounts that even they aren't 'free'...There's levels of freedom, you can say a person is more free than another, but yes, I'd agree that technically speaking they're not free. I believe this was one of my previous points.

Quote from: Koberulz

If the word "no" isn't good enough for you, what the hell is?

I need more info. You won't budge if guns lead to major problems, but will if they're the cause of major problems. I could at least do with knowing why you've made this distinction, particularly as it appears to be a contradiction to, "no stats in the world would make me budge". Also, if my analysis of your arguments are wrong, I'd like to know why, if I don't, then I don't have much to go on.

Quote from: koberulz

What exactly am I dodging here?

You've not stated why you don't offer the same logic for guns as you do with missiles. You say you'd need more thought, I asked why? I've seen no reason in your arguments that requires you to thing more on the situation surrounding missiles because your arguments support guns by proxy supports missiles. Each time I keep making these kind of challenges you won't actually tell me they're wrong or exactly why they're wrong. I have one thing saying to me: this guy wants civil liberties surrounding arms regardless of consequence. Then: this guys is undecided about missiles because of the consequences. Then: this guy isn't bothered if legalisation leads to a problem but claims if it's the cause, then he'll budge - I think the difference is semantics when you consider than changes would be as a result of gun legalisation; after all, we're not talking about correlation, but where the legalisation of guns becomes responsible.

But, if I'm going to trust your previous statement - you'd budge at cause, then does that mean if the legalisation of guns in the UK were to cause the increase of murders and other violent crime in the UK then would you say, "the UK didn't need them", despite it being in contradiction with a previous statement?

Which makes these 3 statements seem contradictory and I keep raising them because I am looking to be told exactly how they don't contradict one another and how you're able to be undecided about missiles but be so stern when it comes to guns.

But also, when I make comparisons or suggestions about your mentality - for example, where I suggest that it's your kind of mentality that's caused so many problems in the world involving guns, you've barely addressed the issue. When talking about the West arming other nations, you argue that they ought not to interfere, but you pass no judgment the result of the interference, which is what I was trying to get at, essentially, are these countries better off because they're armed?

It's these kind of things that I feel are being avoided and now it's making it increasingly difficult to assess exactly what it is you're arguing, after all, statements you make seem to contradict the logic you're using and the arguments you have been making.

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

Who gets to decide? How's a bill passed? Through government. Does this mean the government decide - not necessarily, whenever a bill is proposed, in our democratic society you as a collective have the ability to get the right amendments made or stop the bill being passed altogether.

Really?

Quote

As for data. I went through that one: research, studies, scientific method (like social sciences) etc.

These are not data. These are types of data. What numbers would indicate that legalising guns is a good idea? What numbers would indicate that banning guns is a good idea?

Quote

I need more info. You won't budge if guns lead to major problems, but will if they're the cause of major problems. I could at least do with knowing why you've made this distinction, particularly as it appears to be a contradiction to, "no stats in the world would make me budge".

If you could prove that the act of purchasing or owning a gun directly violates the rights of another, then guns should be banned. If legalising them leads to people using them to kill each other, guns should not be banned. Also, if my analysis of your arguments are wrong, I'd like to know why, if I don't, then I don't have much to go on.

Quote

You've not stated why you don't offer the same logic for guns as you do with missiles. You say you'd need more thought, I asked why?

The complete lack of realistic legal use, and the increased ability to kill dozens of people all at once. It's quite different from something that has legitimate uses and kills one person at a time.

Quote

But, if I'm going to trust your previous statement - you'd budge at cause, then does that mean if the legalisation of guns in the UK were to cause the increase of murders and other violent crime in the UK then would you say, "the UK didn't need them", despite it being in contradiction with a previous statement?

I see no way the laws of physics allows the mere act of owning a gun to kill people, so it's not a question that needs answering.

Quote

where I suggest that it's your kind of mentality that's caused so many problems in the world involving guns, you've barely addressed the issue.

Does it need addressing? I wouldn't suggest there's any way you could prove what mentalities are and are not contributory to gun violence.

Quote

When talking about the West arming other nations, you argue that they ought not to interfere, but you pass no judgment the result of the interference, which is what I was trying to get at, essentially, are these countries better off because they're armed?

Depends what aspect of life you're talking about. I'm also not familiar with the countries you're talking about, and I don't believe you've even named them, so it's a bit hard to comment.

If that was true, then there was no reason to mention it in response to my post regarding the likelyhood of a gun ban.

Which is why I didn't. I mentioned it in response to your first post regarding the blatant obviousness, to the government, of the economic consequences of a gun ban, and the associated black market and jail population increase. They just happened to be the same post.

The whole idea that the second amendment is to prevent tyrrany in this day and age is preposterous. That ship sailed long ago and the Patriot Act sunk it. It is a naive and childish idea.

Completely agree. I love guns as much as anybody, and I like the idea in theory. But protecting ourselves from a corrupt government with handguns and rifles went out the window pretty much around the same time that the U.S. millitary split an atom.

Hell, it went out the window as soon as they had the technology to drop bombs from a bi-plane a few thousand feet in the air.

Yeah. Ok. True, to a point. Let me edit it for you, and tell me what you think of tossing out rights because they are outmoded by more recent events.

Quote

Quote

The whole idea that the first amendment is to protect free speech and exercise of belief in this day and age is preposterous. That ship sailed long ago and the Patriot Act sunk it. It is a naive and childish idea.

Completely agree. I love free speech as much as anybody, and I like the idea in theory. But speaking our minds without retribution and being atheists went out the window pretty much around the same time that government allowed wiretaps and investigations into groups it deemed offensive, and the moment George Bush made his infamous statement about atheists.

Hell, it went out the window as soon as the Air Force started imposing religious dogma and doctrine onto their troops.

Or, maybe you could stand to lose the 13th amendment? Or the twenty-first? Old, barbaric things that they are. To let go of one major amendment can loosen your grip on others. Care for an outlaw of atheist groups, anyone? How impossible do you think that is, how unthinkable?

If that was true, then there was no reason to mention it in response to my post regarding the likelyhood of a gun ban.

Which is why I didn't. I mentioned it in response to your first post regarding the blatant obviousness, to the government, of the economic consequences of a gun ban, and the associated black market and jail population increase. They just happened to be the same post.

Yes, really. Racial and Religious Hatred Bill 2005 caused a ruckus over the issue of 'Freedom of Expression', it couldn't be passed until it didn't hurt people's freedom of expression. Read 29J of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, it's entitled 'Freedom of Expression' and considers heavily enough people's freedom of expression. Labour Party - 0, Democracy - 1.

Quote from: koberulz

These are not data. These are types of data. What numbers would indicate that legalising guns is a good idea? What numbers would indicate that banning guns is a good idea?

I wouldn't just need numbers, why? I've already said my piece about statistics more than once. I don't have numbers to give and I've not claimed that I know what numbers would indicate that keeping guns illegal is a bad idea. I've argued the reasons to not be hasty and why legalisation of guns could be a bad idea and that we have lack of data on both sides of the argument to draw a conclusion. For figures, I'd want the number to improve enough to show that it's not a statistical anomaly and of course, it'd therefore have to be consistent. In the UK if have guns cuts violent crime and other crime by 3%, then it's an improvement, so long as we so no risks short term or long term, then despite being small, it's an improvement. But as I've maintain, statistics isn't enough.

Quote from: koberulz

I see no way the laws of physics allows the mere act of owning a gun to kill people, so it's not a question that needs answering.

We're talking about a law causing the increase of murder. The act of owning a gun doesn't kill people. The legalisation may result in the increase of murder - if you've got that possibility, surely this ought to be researched? It'd look pretty shitty if a country passed gun law to find that 40% of their cases of assault suddenly turned into murder and manslaughter cases:

“And the National Rifle Association says that, "Guns don't kill people, people do,” but I think the gun helps, you know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, "Bang!" That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that…” - Eddie Izzard

The reason I posted that joke is because it holds a valid point. Yes, it's people doing the killing, but at the end of the day, a gun can really help.

Think of guns as a catalyst to a problem. It doesn't cause the problem, it makes it worse. Or at least, that would be argument if you were to find murders increased as a result of gun legalisation. Hence why I would rather study to be put into this. If you want to make a situation better, you don't thrown in a catalyst that makes it worse. If there was a way to give guns to honest people and not to people who misuse them, then that'd be great, but I'm sure you realise that's not possible.

Quote from: koberulz

The complete lack of realistic legal use, and the increased ability to kill dozens of people all at once. It's quite different from something that has legitimate uses and kills one person at a time.

But the act of owning a missile doesn't kill people. As far situations: what if there's civil war? What if the government is corrupt and you need to overthrow them? What if one of the countries that hates us decides they have the firepower to take us one? Surely in those situations you ought to be able to have a missile? Enemy planes? If you've got heat-seeking missiles, they don't have to bomb your street. Your forefathers feared invasion, hence the second amendment. What if civilians in Pearl Harbor had the ability to take down Japanese planes?

Quote from: koberulz

Depends what aspect of life you're talking about. I'm also not familiar with the countries you're talking about, and I don't believe you've even named them, so it's a bit hard to comment.

IraqAfghanistanRwandaLiberiaSierra LeoneSomalia

So was it a good idea for those developing countries to have been armed with the weapons of the West?

I am fairly sure those countries have been armed by us, but if corrected wrong, then I accept that - though at the end of the day, they're still armed.

HOWEVER, this thread is 8 pages long, it's going around in circles. I've repeated many points several times - so chances are, if I reply, it'll be to something new, if it isn't, then you ought to already know my response. If you feel you've added something new and I've missed it, then you're welcome to point it out to me.

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

Yes, really. Racial and Religious Hatred Bill 2005 caused a ruckus over the issue of 'Freedom of Expression', it couldn't be passed until it didn't hurt people's freedom of expression. Read 29J of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, it's entitled 'Freedom of Expression' and considers heavily enough people's freedom of expression. Labour Party - 0, Democracy - 1.

Did the public have any legal standing to do anything, or was it just government reaction to public outcry/opposition parties voting the bill down? Here in Australia, the Labor party is intent on censoring the internet, despite the wishes of the public, and the Libs and Greens opposing the policy is our only hope. Of course, since three people practically nobody voted for decided the result of the election, the idea that we live in any sort of democracy is asinine.

Quote

I wouldn't just need numbers, why? I've already said my piece about statistics more than once. I don't have numbers to give and I've not claimed that I know what numbers would indicate that keeping guns illegal is a bad idea. I've argued the reasons to not be hasty and why legalisation of guns could be a bad idea and that we have lack of data on both sides of the argument to draw a conclusion. For figures, I'd want the number to improve enough to show that it's not a statistical anomaly and of course, it'd therefore have to be consistent. In the UK if have guns cuts violent crime and other crime by 3%, then it's an improvement, so long as we so no risks short term or long term, then despite being small, it's an improvement. But as I've maintain, statistics isn't enough.

You can't get these numbers without legalising guns, though, on a trial basis at least. Then you've either got the widespread distribution of guns that the US has, making a re-ban impractical, or such a low distribution of guns that the numbers are useless. This is why I asked how you'd prove that guns would be beneficial in the UK.

Quote

The act of owning a gun doesn't kill people.

Exactly.

Quote

The legalisation may result in the increase of murder - if you've got that possibility, surely this ought to be researched? It'd look pretty shitty if a country passed gun law to find that 40% of their cases of assault suddenly turned into murder and manslaughter cases

Except that again, you're at this point banning something because of its potential use in a crime, which you can't do. I don't see how that's different to cameras, keyboards or anything else.

Quote

As far situations: what if there's civil war? What if the government is corrupt and you need to overthrow them? What if one of the countries that hates us decides they have the firepower to take us one? Surely in those situations you ought to be able to have a missile? Enemy planes? If you've got heat-seeking missiles, they don't have to bomb your street. Your forefathers feared invasion, hence the second amendment. What if civilians in Pearl Harbor had the ability to take down Japanese planes?

Did the public have any legal standing to do anything, or was it just government reaction to public outcry/opposition parties voting the bill down?

In that specific case, I believe it was parts of the government reacting to the outcry - in the end it was the House of Lords that rejected it. The people trying to pass it failed - for it to be allowed it had to have the amendments made to consider 'Freedom of Expression'. The Digital Economy Bill was represented by petitions, but I've not followed that one up because I was writing my dissertation at the time. I asked conservative MP, but from what I understood (when asking questions to conservative MP Baroness Warsi) was that the original issues that the petition brought to attention were no longer an issue with the bill.

I don't think we live in a perfect democracy, there's a lot of actions that are completely undemocratic, I don't put a huge amount of trust into the system, so if the coalition suddenly decided to pass a "Gun Ownership Bill" there's a chance my voice won't be represented and it's possible parliament will turn around and do something completely undemocratic. The labour party did - nobody voted for Gordon Brown, he just took the seat of power when Blair stepped down, nobody had the balls to call a re-election. Nobody voted for a coalition government, I voted Lib Dem, I didn't vote for them to join the conservatives. But you asked "who makes the decision" and it's the kind of thing that's in the hands of our government.

Quote from: koberulz

You can't get these numbers without legalising guns, though, on a trial basis at least. Then you've either got the widespread distribution of guns that the US has, making a re-ban impractical, or such a low distribution of guns that the numbers are useless. This is why I asked how you'd prove that guns would be beneficial in the UK.

I a council were able to trial guns in their county and keep it controlled, there's still a level of risk, but you could base a decision on the results and gradually expand gun availability in the UK. The problem is, it'd still be exploitable. The trial sounds like a good idea, so if that could be pulled off, then I'd support it, if not, then I'm just going to state, "I don't know".

Quote from: koberulz

Except that again, you're at this point banning something because of its potential use in a crime, which you can't do. I don't see how that's different to cameras, keyboards or anything else.

I'll try one last time to make it clear, if not, then it'll be difficult for either one of us to argue on this point. It's a question of positives outweighing the negatives where alternative methods are incapable. Getting rid of cameras creates a great number of problems, many businesses, industries and individuals use cameras and its benefits are widely exploited and if we could prove that removing cameras will reduce pedophilia and succeed where other methods fail, then it'd still be difficult because of the logistics of actually removing them from society. In the UK, guns aren't widely used or widely available, people don't rely on them for any particular purpose, so there's less of a reason to have them legal than a camera.

Quote from: koberulz

Thus preceding that with the word 'realistic'.

It's not all that unrealistic. They're all possibilities, they're things that have happened before and things people are still capable of today and the motives still exist. Sure, they're not likely to happen, but if the situation arises, wouldn't you like to be able to protect yourself?

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

Did the public have any legal standing to do anything, or was it just government reaction to public outcry/opposition parties voting the bill down?

In that specific case, I believe it was parts of the government reacting to the outcry - in the end it was the House of Lords that rejected it. The people trying to pass it failed - for it to be allowed it had to have the amendments made to consider 'Freedom of Expression'. The Digital Economy Bill was represented by petitions, but I've not followed that one up because I was writing my dissertation at the time. I asked conservative MP, but from what I understood (when asking questions to conservative MP Baroness Warsi) was that the original issues that the petition brought to attention were no longer an issue with the bill.

Which is more government working than democracy working, really.

Quote

do something completely undemocratic. The labour party did - nobody voted for Gordon Brown, he just took the seat of power when Blair stepped down, nobody had the balls to call a re-election.

I a council were able to trial guns in their county and keep it controlled, there's still a level of risk, but you could base a decision on the results and gradually expand gun availability in the UK. The problem is, it'd still be exploitable. The trial sounds like a good idea, so if that could be pulled off, then I'd support it, if not, then I'm just going to state, "I don't know".

There's no way doing that would ever work. Therefore, your pro/con argument is pretty useless, because you don't know what the answers to that question are.

Quote

I'll try one last time to make it clear, if not, then it'll be difficult for either one of us to argue on this point. It's a question of positives outweighing the negatives where alternative methods are incapable. Getting rid of cameras creates a great number of problems, many businesses, industries and individuals use cameras and its benefits are widely exploited and if we could prove that removing cameras will reduce pedophilia and succeed where other methods fail, then it'd still be difficult because of the logistics of actually removing them from society. In the UK, guns aren't widely used or widely available, people don't rely on them for any particular purpose, so there's less of a reason to have them legal than a camera.

See above.

Quote

Quote from: koberulz

Thus preceding that with the word 'realistic'.

It's not all that unrealistic. They're all possibilities, they're things that have happened before and things people are still capable of today and the motives still exist. Sure, they're not likely to happen, but if the situation arises, wouldn't you like to be able to protect yourself?

There's no way doing that would ever work. Therefore, your pro/con argument is pretty useless, because you don't know what the answers to that question are.

Considering my argument is: before we can make such a decision is that we need evidence that it'd work and that not all data can be universalized, therefore the argument that other countries should replicate US gun law is invalid, except in cases where we can be sure it's an effective method. We don't know the effects. Then I don't need to know the answers, rather, I am asking for them. I've posed to you why we shouldn't just accept that guns are good for a society without being able to confirm whether the statement is true or not. I don't know what figures are beneficial and I don't know the best method of testing for said figures or conducting a study. I just know that hasty decisions based off of misuse of statistics or rhetoric is not a good basis of passing a bill or claiming something to be true. My other argument, which I haven't emphasised for quite a number of posts, is that whilst we're unable to confirm things like: "America will be better off without guns" and "the UK will be better off with them" then our focus ought to be on other methods of preventing crime, things we know to work and methods we know to be more effective. I think changing current gun law ought to be pretty low on the priority list.

So...I don't see how 'not knowing the answers' makes my argument useless because my argument hasn't claimed that I do or is it dependent on the answers.

Quote from: koberulz

Which is more government working than democracy working, really.

It's a faulty system of democracy because the government finds ways to get away with being undemocratic and I think, yes, we need a true democracy, but I don't think we're going to get one, so we have to work with what we've got and keep the government on their toes every time they abuse the system.

Quote from: koberulz

The notion of an organised civil war is incredibly unrealistic.

I was talking about war in general. If it comes to your doorstep, whether it's a civil war or a war with another country, surely you ought to be able to protect yourself. We know from history that it happens and it can happen again, the government isn't capable of protecting everybody. Again, wasn't this the basis behind the second amendment?

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

So instead you'd base a decision on rhetoric and misused statistics? If we're to maintain you can't know the answer (I don't know if studies could or couldn't be conducted to find the answer, but I'll assume for the sake of argument, they can't), then that point still stands.

Without enough evidence on either side of the fence and the inability to test the effects of legalisation or banning guns, then surely other methods of reducing crime ought to be explored and for gun laws to NOT be changed (unless such evidence is found)? America keeps their guns, the UK isn't given them and both countries go out and seek ways of reducing their crime.

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

In the absence of statistics, however, the freedom argument is really the only one left standing.

With countries that really suffer for gun crime, there is enough to suggest that making the decisions because of the freedom argument, then there's still risk factors involved. In making the decision you are playing with people's lives. I a country, like the US can quadruple for murder, almost equal for assault and have more 600 times the amount of murders in total being committed with the use of firearms, it brings into question whether introducing firearms is a good idea. And whilst the question remains you can't have a hasty decision because it'd be a stupid one.

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.